In the Pacific Mail Steamship Company v. Schmidt case of 1915, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of a seaman who was injured while working on a ship owned by the Pacific Mail Steamship Company. The court held that under maritime law, an employer is liable for injuries suffered by its employees due to negligence or unseaworthiness of their vessels. This ruling established important precedents regarding employers' liability and workers' rights at sea. It also clarified that such cases should be tried under federal jurisdiction as they fall within admiralty and maritime jurisdiction rather than state laws.

In the dissenting opinion for Pacific Mail Steamship Company v. Schmidt, Justice Holmes disagreed with the majority's interpretation of a statute that allowed seamen to sue their employers in federal court for injuries sustained while on duty. He argued that this law was intended to protect sailors from being exploited by ship owners and should be interpreted broadly rather than narrowly. According to him, it was not necessary for an injury to occur onboard or during work hours in order for a sailor to seek compensation under this law; instead, any harm suffered as a direct result of employment conditions should qualify. Furthermore, he criticized the majority's reliance on English common law precedents which did not reflect current realities or U.S legal principles. In his view, these outdated rulings were irrelevant and only served to undermine workers' rights protections enshrined in modern legislation.